XLFQ.L vs. FWRA.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XLFQ.L (Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF) and FWRA.L (Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation) are both exchange-traded funds - XLFQ.L is a Financials Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Financials NR USD, while FWRA.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the FTSE All-World Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, XLFQ.L returned 4.63% vs 30.18% for FWRA.L. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XLFQ.L charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FWRA.L.

Performance

XLFQ.L vs. FWRA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.L) and Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

XLFQ.L is traded in GBp, while FWRA.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the FWRA.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XLFQ.L achieves a -4.71% return, which is significantly lower than FWRA.L's 12.15% return.

XLFQ.L

• 1D: 3.26%
• 1M: 2.31%
• YTD: -4.71%
• 6M: -2.62%
• 1Y: 4.63%
• 3Y*: 15.45%
• 5Y*: 9.10%
• 10Y*: 13.02%

FWRA.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 5.33%
• YTD: 12.15%
• 6M: 12.33%
• 1Y: 30.18%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XLFQ.L vs. FWRA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
XLFQ.L Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF	-4.71%	7.07%	32.15%	13.17%
FWRA.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation	12.04%	13.65%	20.13%	8.18%

Correlation

The correlation between XLFQ.L and FWRA.L is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2023	0.56

The correlation between XLFQ.L and FWRA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

XLFQ.L vs. FWRA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XLFQ.L	FWRA.L
Financial Services	98.0%	16.4%
Technology	1.7%	29.1%
Industrials	0.2%	11.0%
Basic Materials	-	3.9%
Communication Services	-	8.9%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	5.0%
Energy	-	4.3%
Healthcare	-	7.6%
Real Estate	-	1.9%
Utilities	-	2.6%

Return for Risk

XLFQ.L vs. FWRA.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

XLFQ.L

XLFQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 14
XLFQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
XLFQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
XLFQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 13
XLFQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
XLFQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 13

FWRA.L

FWRA.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
FWRA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
FWRA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
FWRA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 73
FWRA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
FWRA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 74

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

XLFQ.L vs. FWRA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.L) and Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	XLFQ.L	FWRA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.33	2.54	-2.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.57	3.52	-2.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	1.49	-0.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.36	4.33	-3.97
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.84	16.50	-15.66
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XLFQ.L vs. FWRA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XLFQ.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.33, which is lower than the FWRA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XLFQ.L and FWRA.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XLFQ.L	FWRA.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.33	2.54	-2.21
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.52	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.65	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.64	1.44	-0.80

Drawdowns

XLFQ.L vs. FWRA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XLFQ.L drawdown since its inception was -35.39%, which is greater than FWRA.L's maximum drawdown of -17.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLFQ.L and FWRA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XLFQ.L	FWRA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.39%	-17.86%	-17.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.81%	-6.91%	-5.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.01%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.01%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.39%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.62%	-0.38%	-6.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.65%	-2.09%	-3.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.48%	1.82%	+3.66%

Volatility

XLFQ.L vs. FWRA.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.L) has a higher volatility of 4.46% compared to Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L) at 3.67%. This indicates that XLFQ.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FWRA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XLFQ.L	FWRA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.46%	3.67%	+0.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.48%	9.28%	+1.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.91%	11.79%	+2.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.52%	12.93%	+4.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.14%	12.93%	+7.21%

XLFQ.L vs. FWRA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XLFQ.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than FWRA.L's 0.15% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

XLFQ.L vs. FWRA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XLFQ.L nor FWRA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XLFQ.L and FWRA.L in my portfolio?

XLFQ.L and FWRA.L have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XLFQ.L or FWRA.L?

On fees, XLFQ.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XLFQ.L or FWRA.L?

XLFQ.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for FWRA.L.

What is the main difference between XLFQ.L and FWRA.L?

XLFQ.L is categorized as Financials Equities, while FWRA.L is Global Equities. XLFQ.L tracks MSCI World/Financials NR USD, while FWRA.L tracks FTSE All-World Index. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for XLFQ.L and 0.15% for FWRA.L.